The Putin Interviews

Trip 2—Day 1—February 19, 2016

OS: How are you, Mr. President? Nice to see you. I thought maybe you could sit over there and I’ll sit here and we’ll play it by ear a bit. That’s an old American expression—do you know it? “Play it by ear?” Playing an instrument without sheet music—improvising, like jazz.

VP: No, I don’t. Well, there’s a whole gang of people here—so many.

OS: You had a tough day. It’s been a while—nice to see you. I think last June was the last time I saw you.

VP: Yes, it was in June.

OS: Did you miss me? [laughter]

VP: Yes, I cried every now and then, but finally we’re here.

OS: I’m sure you’ve cried about other things. I fell asleep upstairs while we were waiting—caught up on my jet lag.

VP: Well, I envy you.

OS: How was your day?

VP: Well—in work. I met my colleagues, I talked about domestic policies and security. Economic issues—talked on many occasions with the minister for finance. I also talked to my assistant on economic matters. So that’s about it. That was my day. I met the speaker of the parliament, defense minister, also minister for the interior.

OS: Holy cow. Well, you didn’t have a cabinet meeting then?

VP: No, not today.

OS: I’m told there was a National Security Council-type meeting.

VP: Exactly, many years ago I put into place a small group of people comprising the heads of security services and also other special services and ministries. And we call it the meeting of the Security Council of Russia.

OS: I see. A crisis or anything?

VP: No, it’s a regular meeting. It happens once a week.

OS: Well, I would just ask you because we were normally scheduled for 3 p.m. and now it’s… six hours and 40 minutes later.

VP: Well, I knew that you had to have some rest and have some soup.

OS: [laughter] I’m saying there must be crises that come up—there are things that aren’t scheduled.

VP: No, there is no crisis. It’s just regular work, routine work. But one thing entails another thing. It’s like a chain. And when you plan a meeting for 10 minutes and he asks you one question after another and then 10 minutes turns into an hour. And it’s very difficult to put an end to this chain of events.

OS: Well, it seems then that you’re a man of details.

VP: Yes, I try to be. I don’t even read some summaries of reports of my intelligence services or special services. I don’t read summaries.

OS: You read the actual report?

VP: Yes, the reports themselves.

OS: That goes to my bigger question, because my producer who’s here, Fernando, we were talking earlier and he said you are an excellent CEO—chief executive officer—of a company. Russia is your company.

VP: Maybe. The process of coordinating. It all starts with finding, detecting some problem areas, questions that need answering. And then we get down to finding ways to address these issues.

OS: You’re a great CEO. You kick the tires, you deal with these problems and you’re trying to solve them on the spot.

VP: Yes, I think that’s the case.

OS: Well, sometimes the argument is—I mean I’m talking about work management because it’s an interesting question to everybody. Let’s say the problem is this, you go into the details and the details sometimes get smaller. And you look at the micro detail. And each micro detail has another micro detail and before you know it you’ve lost the forest for the trees, as they say.

VP: No, I try not to get to that point. I try not to stop halfway, if I see that we are moving in the right direction. In other words, I am not trying to go into too many details—I’m not too meticulous. I try to respond to the existing issues, to the existing problems, but I do it on the spot. It’s a living process.

OS: That can be very irritating. You can probably go to bed at night not having solved some of these things and it really drives you nuts.

VP: Yes, sometimes that happens.

OS: Terrible.

VP: But that’s very interesting.

OS: Interesting in what way? It goes into your subconscious and you sleep on it?

VP: I meant that the process itself is interesting. It’s not about having some issues unresolved. It’s about the very process of addressing these issues. I try to make it more creative. Just imagine a painter is painting a picture and then he has dinner. And he just quits his picture and goes to dinner. But that’s not how it happens. The painter tries to complete something and only after that he’s ready to have some rest. I’m not comparing myself to….

OS: Well, for example, just using an old fashioned example, if you have a tractor factory. One problem is you don’t make enough tractors. That could be one problem and there’s ways to solve that. Do you throw more men at it? Modernize the equipment in a certain way? How do you go about making more tractors? Number two, is the management of the factory wrong? Is there a problem with the manager? Do you have to see the manager for yourself to know, or do you trust the associate of an associate of an associate to tell you. And number three—do we need tractors? Should we rethink this thing? These kinds of questions are not solvable right away.

VP: Yes, certainly. Well, it’s especially about the market. If the project is required, that’s one matter. If you need modernized products then it’s another matter entirely. But anyway we always have to seek modernization to be more efficient.

OS: Right, but sometimes it’s hard to identify the problem. It’s a messy thing and it doesn’t solve right away. It could be a problem of personnel or could be a problem of technique or problem of “am I doing the right thing in the first place?” You know—it’s messy.

VP: Yes, I agree. And one always has to give it some thought. And then you have to think a lot about dealing with the issue you are faced with—what are the instruments, what are the tools you need to do that?

OS: Which brings us to the larger problem which is you’ve been doing this as a president, prime minister, now president again for 15 years. 15 years. I’m sure you know the story of Ronald Reagan—one of the most admired presidents by conservatives in my country. He was famous for sticking to his schedule, which required him on most nights to come home to the White House by 6 o’clock and have an early supper and watch TV with his wife. And he managed to do that for eight years.

VP: Here’s a happy man. Very well organized, disciplined, and no doubt that was a great achievement of his—to his advantage.

OS: That is my point. He was a smiling man. He was a great greeter and meeter and he was wonderful—how do you say—he made people feel good and happy about themselves, in general.

And we laugh, but he presented a very good image for eight years and it worked. People didn’t see through it—most people did not see through it until after he left the presidency. He was very happy eating jelly beans and telling a good joke.

VP: Well, you’ve said that I’ve been dealing with one issue for 15 years but that’s not the case.

OS: I didn’t say that—I said you’ve been doing this for 15 years.

VP: Yes, but these are different matters. It’s one thing to be president, but it’s entirely another thing to be the head of the government. The most difficult work, at least in Russia, has certainly been the Chairman of the Russian government because there I can pinpoint issues that need tackling. Much of this work is very closed to the public simply because it doesn’t interest the public. But this work is of great importance to the economy of the country. And this work is routine and there is a great deal of this work.

OS: I understand, but Reagan was a big believer in delegating authority to everyone around him and he did that successfully—not always because he didn’t know what was going on—but he was successful. I’m just trying to make that example because it’s another way of living. If you have good associates that you trust.

VP: You need to address two issues. First you have to find the right people, and then you have to delegate authority to them. And that’s the rule. That is something we have to aspire to.

OS: Well, it seems to me you’re doing it the hard way.

VP: Well, probably. And yet I understand that and that is exactly what I’m aspiring to. There is a great deal of difference between us. Ronald Reagan was head of the United States. Be that as it may his difficulties are not compatible to the difficulties Russia was going through at the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s.

OS: Well, Reagan would disagree he would say the country, America, was broke and that it needed to be fixed and it was morning in America again and it was his job to bring enthusiasm and positive energy to America. He did a pretty good job of creating that feeling—it’s a feeling, an illusion.

VP: Almost being broke and being broke—these are two different things entirely.

OS: Well actually some people would argue that Reagan made America more broke because the debt grew enormously in America.

VP: Yes, certainly—today it’s what, $18 trillion?[88] So there you go.

OS: Yes. And Russia’s debt is?

VP: Russia’s is 12 percent of the GDP.[89]

OS: So 18 trillion US and about 1 trillion Russia.[90]

VP: It’s important to remember the share of the GDP. In the United States, the debt’s share as compared to the GDP is 100 percent whereas in Russia it’s 12 to 13 percent—around—I don’t want to make a mistake but in Russia it’s for sure 12 to 13 percent.

OS: There’s no question about economics—we can go right there. The Russian economy. How is the Russian economy? It’s rough, I know—you want to talk about it a bit?

VP: Certainly, there are difficulties. There are difficulties which consist first and foremost of the fact that you need higher oil prices. It is very difficult to push economic actors towards investing into new industries which are less profitable than the oil and gas industry. And that is what the structure of our economy depended upon—our efforts aimed at changing the structure through administrative and financial means. We’re reaping some fruit, but not enough to change the structure itself. Right now the oil/gas price has fallen from more than 100 dollars to less than 30—and that is more than threefold. On the one hand it’s difficult to get the budget revenue. But on the other hand it creates stimuli to develop manufacturing and agriculture. And that’s what we’re doing. In terms of prices, the lower price of oil hurts the purchasing power of the population. And it also reflects on certain industries such as machine-building, car-building, construction and a number of other industries. But at the same time it drives economic players toward investing in other industries and that’s what we’re trying to support. And that’s why the first thing we’re doing is trying to secure investment. We support certain industries that are going through difficult times such as construction, car-building. But separately, we’re also trying to achieve the so-called import substitution.

OS: Import substitution—what’s that?

VP: This strategy doesn’t seek to eliminate imports. It seeks to create the manufacturing of high technology products inside the country. In the past we could buy anything using the oil money. But that was undermining the stimulus for internal development. And right now the government is trying to support high technology industries, to help both defense and civilian industries. And I have to say that we are achieving success in that regard. In agriculture, as a response to the actions of our partners, we have introduced certain restrictions and we have freed our internal market for Russian producers. But high technology industries, our partners have introduced restrictions on their exports. And thereby they stimulated us to create similar manufacturing processes within the country. I have to say that we are achieving success in this, despite a certain drop in the GDP. We have managed to achieve some good macro-economic indicators which are grounds for thinking that we are not just emerging from the crisis, but that we actually have good prospects for the future. Just have a look. Our budget deficit is just 2.4 percent. Even though we thought that it would be more than four percent. We have a surplus of trade and also a current account surplus. So we sell more than we purchase and the balance of payments of our budget is also very positive. At the same time, we have a considerably higher level of reserves than we did before. It’s $360 billion. These are the reserves of the central bank. The government also has at its disposal two more reserve funds—$80 billion and another $70 billion. We have this to fund the small budget deficit that we have. And that’s why we managed to maintain the very high quality of the Russian economy—its fundamentals are very good.[91] And what’s more important, we now see some success and progress—the contribution of the agricultural sector of the economy is growing.

OS: You’re paying, what is it, 83 percent of the Chechnyan budget?[92]

VP: It’s not just about the Chechen Republic. Our financial and economic policy is aimed at evening out the standard of living and the income of all constituent entities of the Russian Federation and all the citizens of the Russian Federation wherever they live. Certainly we are not doing that to the fullest. There are certain regions where standards of living are higher, in other regions standards of living are lower. The level of manufacturing or of income is either higher or lower depending on the region, but from those regions that are capable of making a contribution to the federal budget, we’re trying to redistribute incomes to those regions that are lacking their own income. We’re trying to help them catch up, as far as their level of production is concerned.

OS: The food prices went up 20 percent in 2015. Inflation was running at 13 percent.

VP: 12.9 percent, to be more precise.

OS: [laughter] You’ve said that 2016 will be better, but what happened in January was that oil slumped below $30. It’s a hard promise to keep that 2016 was going to get better.

VP: That’s true, but there are two ways to go about it. One way is to fulfill all of the promises without thinking of the consequences, using the reserves that I’ve mentioned. But the second way is to seek the expansion of non-raw materials sectors of the economy and fulfill the social obligations we have using the generation capacity of our economy. I believe that we are following a balanced approach. We are trying to fulfil our social promises, our social obligations first and foremost. But in a manner that will not destroy the economy, should not undermine it. Meanwhile, we are trying to provide support to those industries that have been most affected by the crisis.

OS: Well, worker unrest is an issue. People haven’t been paid in some regions. A great amount has been written about it in the West. People have not been paid—sometimes for one, two, three months.

VP: Well, there are these technical issues related to the arrears in payment—paying the salary, but it’s minimum. There are no real problems with paying the salary. There are only issues related to irresponsibility, to negligence, to making decision too late, but economically and from the point of view of the budget, there are no problems whatsoever.[93] And if someone writes about that, saying that is a serious problem, then they are simply doing what’s called wishful thinking.

OS: What is the Russian Central Bank about? What is that doing?

VP: The central bank is adhering to a very balanced monetary policy. And it meets the understanding of international financial organizations including the International Monetary Fund.

OS: How so? I was told there were no debts to the IMF.

VP: No debts—I’m not talking about our debt right now. I’m talking about our monetary policy. We are in contact with Madame Lagarde and our colleagues from the IMF. We inform them about what we’re doing. We listen to their recommendations. And I know full well that the leadership of the IMF gives a good assessment to the policy of the Central Bank of Russia. Yes, their assessment is positive.[94] Also, because the central bank is taking balanced decisions on time related to the regulation of the national currency rate. And also related to the transition to a market approach to regulating the national currency exchange rate. As of now, the central bank has transitioned to a floating rate of ruble. It has led to depreciation of the ruble, which makes imports more expensive inside Russia. So that is not very good, not very comfortable for those who want to buy different products from abroad or China.

That’s not really good for those companies, for those enterprises that try to modernize thanks to products imported from abroad. So that is the negative side of the ruble depreciation. But there is also a positive side, which creates apparent benefits in the internal market for Russian producers. It also creates a better environment for Russian exports both in agriculture and also in manufacturing.

And if you compare these advantages and disadvantages, you will see there are more advantages than disadvantages. And in this sense, the policy the central bank is pursuing can be viewed as a balanced one and as justified. Furthermore the Central Bank is closely monitoring the situation in the banking sector. It is working coherently to improve the banking system in Russia. That is very important, to make this banking and financial system more viable, more competitive.

OS: Well, you still talk as if the IMF is a partner of Russia’s, and in some ways I know your struggles, but you act as if Wall Street wants Russia to succeed and I question that. And I would ask you: is Wall Street actively working to destroy the Russian economy in the interest of the United States?

VP: I’m not talking about Wall Street right now. But if we talk about the administration of the United States, then certainly the US administration has been viewing, especially recently, Russia as a rival. But we do hope nevertheless that such international institutions as the IMF, the World Bank, and a number of others are performing the functions they have been established to perform. And I refer to them having to have a positive influence on the world economy. Besides, we approach with some level of criticism all the recommendations that we receive. We do not have any obligation to these international organizations. And yet it is with respect that we view these recommendations and the ones that we believe are useful to us, we use.

OS: Who’s “we?” That’s a good question, because sometimes every government in the world, through history, the banks and the government can differ in their interpretation of events and what to do.

VP: When I say “we,” I mean the Russian leadership. I personally did have some difficult relations with the IMF when I became Chairman of the Russian government at the end of 1999.

OS: That was a different time.

VP: Yes. The hostilities in the Caucasus started once again back then. And that was because there was an attack from the Chechen Republic against Dagestan by international gangs of terrorists. And I have to draw attention to the fact that we didn’t attack anyone, that we suffered an attack.[95] And hostilities started once again. And at that moment there was the question of whether to stop paying interest on our loans with the IMF. Back then I was Chairman of the Russian government and the IMF were very clear—they said: stop the hostilities in the Caucasus and we’ll accommodate you.[96] If you don’t stop the hostilities, we’re not going to compromise. Our response back then was: how can you ask the question in this manner? We’ve always heard that the IMF was above politics. That was the first argument I made. Secondly, I was telling them that we were defending ourselves, we didn’t attack anyone—we suffered an attack. But my counterparts were intransigent because they had their instructions as far as I understand and they were simply formulating this. But it doesn’t exclude the fact that after we paid back all our debts to the IMF, we still managed to maintain business-like relations. And we highly value these expert assessments that the IMF provides us with.

Incidentally, Russia not only paid back its debt to the IMF, we also paid back the debts of all the former Soviet republics, including Ukraine’s debt, which was 16 billion US dollars.[97] We’ve always had very good relations with the World Bank. Personally, I have very good business and personal relations with the predecessor of the current head of the World Bank, Mr. Wilson. The World Bank has implemented a great number of very good, very useful projects including in some regions of the Russian Federation. Regrettably, right now these relations have been suspended. I do not see that we are too much interested in that, nor do I see that we cannot live without them. We do hope that these relations are going to be rebuilt and that we will be able to work together as fruitfully as we used to.

OS: Well, that was a different time, in the sense that was way before the Munich speech in 2007. In 2007, you said something to the effect that, “They—the United States—bring us to the abyss of one conflict after another. Political solutions are becoming impossible.”[98] Which raises the broader question of: What is the US policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?

VP: Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very candidly, in great detail—but only once I retire.

OS: Well, I can state it for you and you can argue with me. I could say I think, or many people think, many learned people think the US strategy right now is to destroy the Russian economy, bring it to its feet, back to 1990’s levels, and change the leadership of Russia—make a new ally out of Russia for the United States to basically dominate Russia as they once did. And perhaps they feel they did not go far enough and take your new arsenal away.

VP: This train of thought is quite possible. If that is the case, then I believe this is an erroneous policy. Exactly because such a view of relations with Russia is not oriented towards the future. People who believe like that, they do not see 25 to 50 years to the future. And if they had a look then they would probably go about building relations with Russia differently, in a different frame. And they wouldn’t try to make Russia their vassal. They would try to make Russia their ally—or at least a partner—to address common issues and to surmount threats in which everyone is interested. And probably that would be more efficient than fruitless attempts at turning Russia into a satellite of theirs.

OS: Yes, absolutely. That’s idealistic. But as you know, the United States needs enemies.

VP: Yes, maybe. I believe they need partners and allies more. Philosophy can be changed entirely. Certainly you can try to live and act in a different paradigm. Once a great compatriot of ours, Leo Tolstoy, said—I do not think I can reproduce the quote entirely—but, “There is the realm of possibility and the limit of what is unacceptable. Within this realm of possibilities, one has to build most secure relations—seek relations that are as little dangerous as possible. But that is the minimum of what is required.” I only wish we could act in this paradigm, but certainly it would be far better to search for domains in which combining our capacities, our efforts, would yield the best results for everyone who could participate in this process. Let us take the following example—efforts in fighting poverty, protecting the environment, and in fighting the spread of WMDs, in combating terrorism… Regrettably, so far we have failed to secure efficient joint initiatives in these fields—almost all of them.

OS: Which brings us back to the realities, which are much more difficult. We have the US elections this year and none of these issues—the environment, fixing our alliances—has even been discussed one time. Everything in the election… Rhetoric has been “get tough and tougher.” Build up our military again. And that goes for both sides, including Hillary Clinton, who’s most definitely become a neo-conservative—a hawk. Strong policies against Russia. She was against Obama’s nuclear deal in Iran, she was certainly for the Syrian intervention, and so forth. So there’s very little hope for change in that direction. In addition to that, the Pentagon has announced recently—this new general has announced that Russia is the number one threat to the United States. He’s been very forceful in those statements.[99]

VP: Yes, we know about that. And certainly we cannot welcome that. Contrariwise, we’re always open to dialogue in almost every field. Just an example—even amid these conditions right now, knowing about this rhetoric in the run up to the elections, I know that our women’s organizations have extended an invitation to Hillary Clinton to come to Russia. To pay a visit. I do not know whether she is going to accept this invitation or not. But during an election campaign, unfortunately it has become a fashion in the United States to speculate, to even abuse the Russian issue, so to speak. Afterwards, they tell us: “Please do not pay too much attention to that. You have to understand,” they say to us, “this is just election campaign rhetoric. Afterwards we are going to arrive at a deal with you.” But sacrificing intergovernmental, interstate relations in the name of current political processes is a great mistake, I believe.

OS: Yes I understand. And the administration of Obama may be reassuring you, but Obama himself, with the Pentagon, has escalated recklessly, recklessly, the NATO involvement on the borders of Russia. By the expenditure, they’re spending—four times more has been spent in Eastern Europe in this year than before.[100] Not since Hitler’s days has there been such a build-up on the borders of Russia, which is very surprising with Obama in office.

VP: That is true and that is a source of concern to us. But that is what I was talking about in Munich in 2007. Just recently, I have been told about the discussions that were going on before the reunification of Germany, and a German politician Aaron Barr—one of the leaders of the Democratic Party in Germany—expatiated his view of what the future of Europe would look like, in his conversations with the then-Soviet leadership. And I thought his train of thought was very interesting, his ideas fascinating. He was saying that NATO should not be extended eastward. He was talking about the need to establish a new military block in Central and Eastern Europe, a military alliance which comprised both the United States and Russia. A new bloc. And within the framework of this alliance, all countries in Central Europe and Eastern Europe would feel safe. But that alliance would also include the Soviet Union and the United States. And he was saying that if that didn’t happen, that in the end Russia would be isolated. And that new dividing lines would appear in Europe. He was absolutely right, as history has demonstrated to us. The Soviet leadership have lost this historic chance, and that German politician once said a very interesting thing. He said, “It’s very strange for me that so late and so old, I protect more the interests of the Soviet Union than the Soviet leadership themselves. But I’m doing that consciously so that in the future, a stable environment would appear for the development of Europe—without dividing lines and without conflict. And, moreover, he said, “If you don’t listen to what I say, if you go on ceding your positions, then there is going to be no need for me to come to Moscow ever again. And I’m not going to come here ever again.”

OS: Well, that sounds idealistic again—that was 1991, 25 years ago, and here we are. We’re still in that position where the Pentagon, as I said, is putting something like $3.4 billion into NATO in Eastern Europe this year. Last year it was $789 million, so it’s four times as much.[101] Which is going to force Russia to put heavy weapons and nuclear tactical weapons, again closer to the border of Poland and the Baltic states, and Ukraine I would imagine. So it’s escalation—whatever you call it, it’s escalation.

VP: Further escalation is already happening because the United States is deploying its antiballistic missile system in Eastern Europe and we on many occasions proposed real variants, real scenarios for cooperation.[102] And there was a moment when we thought that our American partners were really thinking about how to put into practice those proposals of ours. Personally, I talked about these proposals when I was visiting, I think it was the forty-first president of the United States. I was talking to George W. Bush in his house outside the city, and I elaborated on our proposals. The response was, “Yes that’s very interesting,” but afterwards it didn’t lead to anything. The United States chose their own path, decided to unilaterally implement this program. Right now there are ABM systems in Romania and we hear they’re going to appear in Poland and in the Mediterranean they’re also going to be deployed. So it’s a separate issue which no doubt is going to require a response from Russia.

OS: Do you think the United States knows—really knows and understands the power that Russia has in nuclear weapons?

VP: I don’t think so. I believe our partners thought at one time that Russia would not be capable of responding to these challenges they’re putting before us because of our economy, because of certain industries that we have—state industries—and due to the underfunding of scientific research. And due to a number of other considerations. But in my view, today everyone can see for themselves that Russia is not only capable of responding to this challenge, Russia is no doubt going to do that.

OS: Well, the United States is very smart. They have great technical help, great computers… How could they not understand the risks that they’re taking? Or do they think that they could out-bluff Russia?

VP: I would like to reiterate that they had a perception saying that the defense industry of Russia was on the verge of collapse and some dignitaries in the United States were even saying that all the Russian nuclear missiles would soon turn to rust. That was what they were saying.

OS: That was then, what about now?

VP: Right now the program has already been launched. They say the program is very difficult to stop right now. To work together on such a sensitive matter, our partners, well they’re simply not willing to do that—not ready to do that. Let me remind you what that signifies. Working together means that you have to work together to detect potential directions from whence missiles can go, it means to create a Joint Center for making decisions, and it also means developing a mechanism for making such decisions. Certainly if we were to pursue this path then we would no doubt have to exchange some technologies. That is what our proposal consisted of—just the outline of our proposal. This proposal was left unanswered.

OS: This is very strange time. And we talked about this last time. I mentioned the 1960 period when the United States felt that they had a large superiority over the Soviet Union and they thought this is the time now. And I compared that to Dr. Strangelove, and you said you had never seen the movie and so forth. But the point is, here we are—the United States has a lot of information on Russia. They can’t be that stupid to not realize that since you’ve been in power, there’s been a great improvement in Russian nuclear technology—not only anti-ballistic, but also airplanes, and ICBMs—including the one that’s so fast it can hit New York in 24 minutes apparently.

VP: That is not everything we have at our disposal and certainly our partners are aware of all of that. But they believe, as far as it seems, that the current level of science, of technologies, the current level of the defense industry of the United States are so high that it gives them grounds to believe that they will be able to make such a breakthrough that no one is going to be able to catch up with them. Just right now, at this very moment, there are ongoing discussions at the International Committee of Armaments Control. This committee was established within the United Nations back in the 1950s and it’s still working, still functional. This international committee is working in Russia and has brought up the issue of preventing the militarization of outer space. Unfortunately, our American partners have blocked this proposal.[103] What does it tell us? Apparently, our partners are intending to use outer space for military purposes directly—not just for intelligence purposes, but also for other purposes. We do understand what direction this string of events is leading towards. There are other dimensions of high technology, which according to our partners, are their monopoly. But they are wrong.

OS: I think you are right. I think there might be some confusion but I do believe that there are many officers in the military who are very smart and I know this, and I think there is a divide between the hardcore, let’s call it the old regime Pentagon and I think there’s a new regime Pentagon that could be borne out of reality and necessity.

VP: Well, it’s up to you to tell because you are American. We act from the assumption of what is going on in reality, in practice… just have a look: the need for deploying ABM systems in Europe was based on the argument that there was a need to counteract the nuclear missile threat from Iran. Right now, thanks to President Obama’s policies, with our support, the nuclear threat of Iran has been removed from the international agenda.[104] And without any exaggeration, it is a great accomplishment of President Obama’s administration and his personal victory as well—whatever his critics say abroad and domestically.

There are very many advantages to this accomplishment. More advantages than disadvantages to this nuclear deal. But now that the nuclear threat from Iran has been moved, why is there a need to continue deploying an ABM system in Europe? But the deployment continues.

OS: Yeah, it’s shocking.

VP: The question arises, were our partners sincere at least on this matter with us or not?

OS: It’s a strange story—Alice in Wonderland, if you know that story. One could argue that the United States doesn’t really worry about the threat to Europe. They worry about Russian existence. The bigger issue is not Europe. The bigger issue is US and Russia. And to take out Russia, requires the United States to keep the European Union going. They need to do everything to make NATO feel as if they have some power and say in this matter. But I think the US has its own force and that’s the force that matters.

So I think, I return to—the policy of the United States has been from the beginning—from the 1917 revolution on, has been a policy that was born on Wall Street, to destroy communism, to destroy the power of the idea of the working class having control over society. And remember, in 1917, Wall Street was equally powerful with the government, if not more so. The government got more power with Roosevelt.

VP: Well, you didn’t ask a question—you simply stated what you think. I’d like to agree with you on the whole. But I’d like to disagree on one matter if I understood you correctly—with regard to the power of the working class. We have to be candid. The working class was not the ruling class in the Soviet Union.

OS: I was saying in the United States. They were concerned about the United States. And they made the Soviet Union a convenient enemy. As we became a war economy. You realize World War I was the first war, but with the Second World War, we became a military industrial complex. We needed an enemy to build all these weapons.

VP: Yes, I think it’s not so much about ideological motives. It’s more about geopolitical rivalry. To this day, I believe, the mistake is that our partners in the United States still treat Russia as if it were their main geopolitical rival. We have many fields of activities in which joint work would no doubt yield positive results both for Russia, for the United States, and for the whole world.

OS: Yes, but we talked about the possibility of mistake, error, perception. We’ve talked about—we don’t realize perhaps, the power Russia has in its nuclear arsenal. So we are interested first in destroying this economy. And then I think some people in my country think that once that country can be destroyed, the leadership is changed, which means you, Mr. Putin, are gone and a softer leader is around. They will take over Russia and they will basically destroy the nuclear industry here or else co-opt it in some way.

VP: Maybe someone does think like that. And it’s understandable there’s probably many who seek exactly that. And yet I believe there is a lack of understanding of our country. And this lack of understanding consists in the fact that probably much depends on certain persons and certain people and on the present. And yet, the most important thing about Russia is the Russian people, and its self-consciousness. The inner state of the Russian people, the inability of the Russian people to exist without sovereignty, to exist outside its own sovereign country. And this understanding, and not the threat of a nuclear war, should make our partners choose to build longstanding relations with Russia. And in that case they won’t have to spend so much money on their defense sectors. Just have a look—last year, in dollars, we allocated $40 billion US dollars to defense, whereas the United States allocated more than $460 billion US dollars. So it’s more than 10 fold. And this year, in 2016, the US is going to allocate more than $600 billion US dollars to defense. It’s just too much—more than the total defense expenditure of all the other countries of the world.[105]

OS: Yes. I wholly agree with you. In The Untold History of the United States documentary we did a large part of that story—the soul of the Russian people in World War II. And I understand that Russia will not give up—they will go to the end on this economy and they will… Under Stalin, in those times, they gave their jewelry, their personal possessions down to their last dollar to support the government against the Nazis.

VP: It’s not about the last dollar, it’s about life itself. Our people were fighting until their last breath—for their life.

OS: But times change, and I think what America may think is that you have to recognize that Britain, France, and Germany were powerful countries—they had huge histories, imperial countries. France, my mother’s homeland, I grew up there partly. Britain, imperial great, and Germany—what happened?

VP: It’s the result of the First World War and the second one, so it’s quite understandable.

OS: Yes, but my point is materialism works because after World War II, these countries basically became American satellites. And they do what America wants now in the world. I’m shocked at this—this is what I’ve seen in my lifetime. If you remember, in 1960, Charles de Gaulle said “no” to the American expansion in Europe. He took France out of NATO.[106] He wanted to get rid of the United States in France. Very strong position. When have we seen anything like that in Europe since then? Mrs. Merkel seems to do what the Americans want, as did Mr. Adenauer, back when, and England basically takes our commands. I don’t see any independence in any of these countries—that worries me.

So what I fear is that the same thing continues. As the times change, you will see this creeping materialism. In Ukraine, it was amazing to see how effective these NGOs were in selling this approach “join Europe/become rich, materialism works, we want the American way of life.”[107] This is the come-on. And I worry that it would creep into this country as well, with their campaigns and media, social media, all these calls to the good life.

VP: I think there are other things we have to fear. I think that however dependent these countries that you’ve named are on their patron, on the United States, however dependent they are economically, from the point of view of information, politically, from the point of view of security… however great this dependence, however solid it is—still, inside these countries, there is a constant movement towards strengthening their sovereignty. There is this tendency.

Right now a certain strengthening of American influence is being witnessed in Europe, partly due to the Eastern European countries, because they are still living in a different paradigm, in a paradigm of fighting civilization. They are trying to resist a former dominating power of the Soviet Union. Right now it’s mirrored in Russia, but sooner or later this is going to stop. And even within the Western bloc there’s going to be a need to build new relations, relations founded on greater respect for one another, for one’s partners, for the interests of your partners, and for their sovereignty.

And I refer to those countries which housed large-scale American military bases. I’m not saying these are occupation forces, but still, the presence of large-scale military units of another country on the soil of a country is telling on the domestic policy of these countries. And it would be right if they started thinking about how events are going to develop in the near future, when they are building relations right now. But instead, as far as I see, American partners are trying to pull their allies toward them, closer. But not through changing the nature of relations within the Western bloc. They are trying to create an image of a common threat. An outside threat. And such a threat is such that they can only protect themselves by pulling themselves around the United States.

In my view, we can say that American partners have achieved certain tactical success following this path. Through initiating the crisis in the Ukraine, they’ve managed to stimulate such an attitude towards Russia, stimulate viewing Russia as an enemy, a possible potential aggressor. They have prevailed on us to take steps in response to what they did. But very soon everyone is going to understand that there is no threat whatsoever emanating from Russia—either to the Baltic countries, or to East Europe, or to Western Europe. And the stronger this misunderstanding is, the greater the desire is going to be to protect their sovereignty and to fend for their national interests. Right now I’m talking about Europe. But you know, in the East, say the Japanese—they are very sensitive to all outer signs of either respect or disrespect with regard to them. It’s a nation with great dignity, with great self-esteem. So this constant feeling of pressure is, let me assure you, something no one is happy about. Sooner or later this is going to have consequences. This is going to happen. And it’s better if this happens through dialogue. Certainly you can try to use North Korea or some other countries to paint a darker picture, to elevate tensions there. But I think what’s needed right now is the transition to a new paradigm, a new philosophy for building relations among countries.

OS: Good luck, but I don’t—

VP: And this paradigm should be based on respect for the interests of other countries, for the sovereignty of other people, not just trying to intimidate them using some outer threat which can only be resisted with the help of the United States. This paradigm will have to shift sooner or later.

OS: One side question, just quickly, is why did Iran give up its—what was their motivation in making the US happy on this nuclear deal?

VP: Well, you have to ask them. They have always maintained that they didn’t seek to create nuclear weapons. But to be honest, if we do not pay enough attention to strengthening the fundamentals of international law which would serve as a guarantee of security, not just for the largest states but also for small countries—if we don’t do that, there are always going to be those who decide to protect themselves at any cost, including through acquiring WMDs. But as to Iran, they have never said that they were trying to get a nuclear bomb. All suspicions on that account were never justified—there was no evidence. And yet there were suspicions. And to alleviate those suspicions, Iran agreed to this nuclear deal, signed an accord, I believe in order to normalize its relations with the United States, with other countries of the world, which were expressing their concerns on that matter.[108]

OS: What are you going to do with the uranium you got from them?

VP: We’re going to re-process it. It’s going to be re-processed and converted into nuclear fuel to be used for peaceful purposes.

OS: I know you’re tired, so I’d just like to ask one final question—

VP: I’m not tired, but if it’s the last question it’s got to be a good one.

OS: Just a fun one—what do you think of these candidates in the US election?

VP: I believe that the people of the United States are going to choose the one who deserves it best.

OS: Nah, we want to hear what you think—just as a personal thing—they’re characters. People are fascinated by it.

VP: Well, I don’t know them very well, or some of them I don’t know at all. We see them only on the TV screen. And when a person is embroiled in some combat, especially in the run up to the election during an electoral campaign, they tend to show some of their qualities but not all of those qualities are manifest. Because routine work—both on the domestic, international, and economic fronts—requires some other qualities from the person than participating in debates, meetings, or rallies. We are going to be ready to work with whoever gets elected by the people of the United States. I said that on several occasions and that’s the truth. I believe nothing is going to change, whoever gets elected.

OS: How about Bernie Sanders—would you like that?

VP: Well, it’s not up to us to say. It’s not whether we are going to like it or not. All I can say is as follows—I have some experience of communicating—the force of the United States bureaucracy is very great. It’s immense. And there are many facts that are not visible about the candidates until they become president. And the moment one gets to the real work, he or she feels the burden.

OS: But you didn’t answer my question about Sanders.

VP: You can take what I’ve just said as an answer to your question.

OS: [laughter]

VP: My colleague, Obama promised to close Guantanamo. He’s failed to do that.

OS: Good point.

VP: But I’m convinced that he sincerely wanted to do that. He still wants to, but he’s failed to.

So what’s said in all those pre-election promises has to be remembered. But it doesn’t mean that we’ll have to deal with that.

OS: But you do realize how powerful your answer could be—if you said suddenly that you didn’t prefer X candidate, you would go like that tomorrow. And if you said you loved Y candidate, they would go the other way—it would create a stir. Anyone you liked would go down, and anyone you didn’t like… Let’s say you hated Donald Trump or something because he’s a madman, right? What would happen? He’d win. You have that amount of power in the US.

VP: Unlike many partners of ours, we never interfere within the domestic affairs of other countries. That is one of the principles we stick to in our work.

OS: So why are you so hated in the US?

VP: You answered this question at the beginning of our conversation. The ruling class believe that they have to fight Russia, that they have to restrain Russia, to contain our development. Certainly, brainwashing is one of the tools to create the necessary political environment to achieve these goals. These goals are the false ones and this policy is erroneous. I do hope that once the new president is elected, we will be able to build relations which will change the paradigm for the relations between Russia and the United States for the better.

OS: Okay thank you, sir. We’ll see you tomorrow.

Trip 2—Day 2—February 20, 2016

OS: Hello, Mr. President—how are you today?

VP: How are you?

OS: I’m a little tired—I was sleeping back there, but you look better today.

VP: You were like a bear in hibernation during wintertime. [laughter]

OS: Well, in Russia things are backward. I stay awake later, and I wake up later. So my body doesn’t know if it’s day or night.

VP: It’s very difficult, I understand.

OS: But you look happier tonight than you did last night.

VP: Yes, yesterday evening I had a lot of things to do.

OS: I could tell—it was in your face.

VP: And today I was dealing with economic matters and I like it more.

OS: You like economics?

VP: Well, addressing concrete issues is always more interesting.

OS: But economics is never concrete.

VP: These economics related to finance, to funding concrete programs, social issues. So these are concrete matters.

OS: Well, economics, they’re always projections. They call themselves a social science, but the projections are generally fucked up. [laughter]

VP: Well, at least there are some benchmarks we can use as orientation marks. But you’re right—certainly, there is very much uncertainty, many unknown factors, and yet decisions have to be made. And I think it’s very close to being an art in itself.

OS: More art than science?

VP: Well, it’s also a science—there’s no doubt about that. But it’s a very complicated science.

OS: The Chinese emperors, every year, used to cut off the heads of the economics minister when it didn’t come in exactly like he projected.

VP: Yes. [laughter]

OS: Sergey Glazyev? Is that his name—your deputy?[109]

VP: Right now he’s my advisor.

OS: Yes, he’s said some very interesting things. How close is he? He’s economics, right?

VP: Yes, economics. He’s a very talented person, but he has a view of his own on the development of the Russian economy and the global economy. He’s always arguing with what the economic part of the government says.

OS: Yes, the Central Bank people—I heard he said some shocking stuff like Russia should establish currency controls.

VP: Yes, controls, some restrictions—restricting the capital flow, the export of capital.

OS: But you haven’t done most of that yet?

VP: We have not adopted these measures and we’re not intending to. And yet it’s always useful to listen to opinions which contradict those that dominate right now.

OS: Well, he must’ve pissed off the Central Bankers.

VP: The Central Bank is not very happy with him and he’s not very happy with the Central Bank. It’s normal.

OS: I gather. We were talking about that last night. I was thinking—I forgot to raise the point, but in Brazil for example, because I know Ms. Rousseff, I don’t feel she has any cooperation in her administration from the Central Bankers of Brazil.

VP: Well, you should probably ask her about that. She’s a very prominent woman. And a good politician.

OS: Can we just walk around so we see the room?

VP: That is the throne room. At the center, that is the throne for the czar and also for the Dowager Empress. And this hall is called St. Andrew Hall—you can see the emblem of St. Andrew—it’s the first court, one of the orders of the Russian empire.[110]

OS: You know, they say you want to be czar. They do magazine covers on it.

VP: Probably they like that… and that’s why I say that. [laughter] They cannot get rid of these old stereotypes.

OS: But you allowed Charlie Rose to make a point, which I think you should have stopped him at one point, because I think he went too far. He said in his interview with you, I was paying attention. In a way that was very leading, he implied, ‘You have all the power, you can do what you want.’ He made it very clear and that’s the way many Americans think—that there’s no system here. And you didn’t correct him.[111]

VP: The question is not about having much power, it’s about using the power that you have in the right way. And those people who say that they lack power in something are those people who cannot use any power whatsoever. And they think that they need more and more power. And they always look at those people who have more power than they do—think they have less power—but they cannot use it efficiently.

OS: Well, then you should shoot the interpreter too. [to Sergei] Was it you? Because I don’t think you understood the question that Rose was leading you to. In other words, in English it sounded like you were the czar and you took it for granted. You took it for granted. That’s what I meant.

VP: He was trying to argue, probably, to incite a discussion. But I didn’t want to have a discussion with him, to debate this, because I have very much work to do.

OS: But I thought it was a good interview for you. I thought you were excellent, by the way. There were a couple of things you missed. But he’s a chess player and he’s trying to trap you and reinforce what the American public would like to believe. That’s my observation.

VP: I’m not trying to make you believe me. I try to express my point of view as clearly as possible on certain concrete issues. And besides, people have to understand for themselves whether what I’m doing is right or not, whether they believe me or not.

OS: As it should be. But you have to understand the American media landscape. Especially in this election year. The surface and some of the most shallow impressions dominate.

VP: I’m afraid, regrettably, that is the case everywhere.

OS: Yeah. Well, you’re a man of much thought and you’re very articulate. You make your points. My producer, Fernando, said I should ask you a question: do you ever lose it? He says you’re so rational every time you’re asked a question—do you ever have a bad day?

VP: Well, I’m not a woman so I don’t have bad days.

OS: [laughter] There you go. Now you’re going to insult about 50 percent of the American public—the way they’re going to take it.

VP: I’m not trying to insult anyone. That’s just nature.

OS: So, a woman to you tends to be more emotional and you don’t want to have your emotions ever cut in and control your reason?

VP: Well there are certain natural cycles and men probably have those too but they are less manifest. And I believe every person has days that are more difficult, other days when we are more efficient. We’re all human beings, so that’s just normal.

OS: How about you—do you ever have bad day?

VP: Yes, certainly. There are days that are overloaded with work. Sometimes I fail to achieve something. Sometimes I have doubts before I arrive at the best solution. But on the whole, it is a working process, the process for making decisions. And it is a positive one.

OS: Well, who do you like to scream at? Dmitry? You use Dmitry as a sounding board somehow? Sometimes you get pissed…

VP: Well, I share my concerns with my workers in those spheres which concern them directly. So I meet the president of the Central Bank and my adviser on economic issues. I meet the heads of the economic block of the government. After meeting with you, I’m going to have a meeting with the defense minister, with the head of the intelligence service.

OS: Later?

VP: Yes, today after we meet.

OS: Why don’t you cancel the meeting and have it Monday—take a day off?

VP: Well, that is out of respect for our American partners.

OS: Why?

VP: Because right now we’re engaged in an active dialogue with our American friends on a number of international issues on which we have to make a decision.

OS: So you’re talking about Syria right now, I guess?

VP: Yes. Including Syria.

OS: That’s today’s news. And we should talk about Syria because we didn’t get to it last night. So where do you see this thing going with Syria? How is Russia doing in this?

VP: I’d like to think that we are on our way. I think we are moving towards finding an acceptable solution. It’s one of those situations when no country can arrive at a solution unilaterally.

OS: [to Dmitry] Dmitry, does he scream at you?

DP: No, never.

VP: I never scream at all. Because when you scream you cannot hear well. You have to have people hear everything. And if you scream, if you raise the tone of your voice, then people are not very good at understanding the sense of what is being said to them.

OS: So all your energy, your aggressive energy, comes out in Judo in the morning or in exercise.

VP: Yes, I try to do that. It also requires some adrenaline.

OS: Yeah, and a good opponent.

VP: Yes.

OS: You have a trainer or a Judo master?

VP: No, well I used to have one. And I think I’m the master. Of course, the trainer is required for those people who want to perform in competitions and who want to get better. And I’m doing it just for exercise. And besides, I’ve been doing it since I was 13 or 14—on a permanent basis. There were no interruptions.

OS: So back to Syria—can you describe why you sent troops to Syria and what your objective was? Give us a little history of that and where you are now?

VP: Well, it’s very easy to explain. We see what has happened in certain countries of the region. I refer in particular to Iraq and to Libya. As to President el-Sisi of Egypt, the same thing did not happen in Egypt. Other countries are also in a difficult situation. But in Libya and in Iraq, a tragedy has transpired. And that has happened due to the forceful ousting of the current regimes. These regimes were destroyed—they were not simply ousted from power—the leadership was eliminated.

And we don’t want the same thing to happen in Syria, otherwise the whole region is going to be plunged into chaos. Moreover, if the same thing that happened in Libya happens in Syria, the position of radical organizations, terrorist organizations, are going to be solidified in a great manner. Right now they’re very strong because they control a vast part of the oil that is being extracted in that region.

OS: Who’s “they?” Terrorists?

VP: Terrorists, yes. So they sell museum artifacts, cultural artifacts, and they also receive aid from abroad and they have grown very powerful. And we should prevent them from getting even stronger. Because they are trying to create a Caliphate from southern Europe extending to Central Asia.

OS: Right. And this is the biggest concern here.

VP: Yes, it’s our biggest concern. But we also have some practical objectives. There are thousands of militants originating from former Soviet republics and from Russia who are fighting there. And they can get back to Russia. And we should prevent that from happening. All that combined has motivated us to take the measures that you’re aware of. At the same time we understand full well that the current leadership of Syria has made certain mistakes in building relations within their own country. And that’s why before making this decision, we have had a dialogue with President Assad. And we were told that he understands well the many problems that the country is facing, and he is not just willing to engage in a dialogue with the opposition groups—even the armed opposition—but he’s also willing to work together with them to elaborate a new constitution.[112] He is ready to agree that early presidential elections be put under very tight international supervision.

OS: Really?

VP: First they have to agree on the new constitution. And this constitution has to be adopted. That is a very difficult task and a very complicated process, but should they succeed in that, then afterwards after a certain period of time, they will be able to have early elections. I think that is the best solution—a democratic way of resolving any contentious issues and also building authority.

OS: Can we go back and discuss briefly the mistakes that Assad made?

VP: I don’t think it is my place to discuss mistakes committed by heads of state and governments—my colleagues, my counterparts. But despite these mistakes that he made, the situation in Syria wouldn’t be like it is today if there had been no interference from outside. And we hear that President Assad is in conflict with his own people, this is not the whole truth. We know what ISIS says—there are so many mercenaries in it. And those are not citizens of Syria. More probably so, we might have to think about how the leadership should be built in Syria in a manner that will ensure that all ethnic and religious groups feel that they participate in this state—that they participate in the leaders. And these groups should also feel independent—free from any possible pressure, from outside. And they should also feel safe—that is very important.

OS: Well, when you’re talking about interfering parties, we’re talking about countries like Turkey? Are we’re talking about people like Saudi Arabia? We’re talking about people like Israel? And ultimately, the United States, France, Britain?

VP: Well, Israel to a lesser degree. Judging from what we see and from what we know, Israel is primarily concerned about the possibility of the spread of radical groups that might damage Israel. But when I was talking about interference from outside, I was talking about those who were sponsoring and arming, buying oil from terrorists and thereby funding them. And who does that? I think it’s very simple to determine, even not being a specialist or an intelligence officer.

OS: Are you talking about Turkey?

VP: I’m talking about those countries that I call the sponsors.

OS: And Russia’s relations with Turkey have been extreme—they’ve been up and down. I thought that Turkey was a great partner of Russia, up until this event. Then I thought you were united in trying to bring the silk road west.

VP: Yes, that used to be the case. And I think, and there were grounds to think that, that I’ve done a lot to build relations between Russia and Turkey. To us, Turkey is a great partner, important in general and also in the Black Sea. We have quite a large trade with Turkey. Certainly it has decreased right now. We view Turkey, not just as a partner, but a friendly country. More than 4 million Russian citizens used to spend their vacation in Turkey every year.[113]

OS: Much of modern Moscow it seems was built by Turkish construction companies.

VP: Yes, certainly. In Moscow and Sochi in the run-up to the Olympic games and in other parts of the country—all across Russia.[114]

OS: So what happened? Did all of a sudden Erdogan decide that the Kurds were a more important issue for him than his relations with Russia? What do you think happened?

VP: Well it’s not about the Kurds. It is a problem, it is a Turkish problem but we have no relation to it whatsoever. And I simply do not have the answer myself to the question that you’ve asked. I’ve met the President of Turkey at Antalya during the G20 summit in November last year.[115] And he and I talked in great detail about our bilateral relations and also about Syria. And he set forth a number of very sensitive issues—issues that are very sensitive to him. And I told him that I was willing to help him and to cooperate with him. And when out of the blue a Russian plane was downed, at that approach of the Syrian-Turkish border, it didn’t even come up during our discussions.[116] When we heard talk about some Turkmen and this issue wasn’t raised during our discussions either. He didn’t talk about that in Antalya at all. I was simply shocked. We demonstrated that we were willing to cooperate with Turkey on issues that were sensitive to them. So why didn’t he mention other issues that apparently are very important to him. That’s the first thing. But the most important thing consists of the following. From the very beginning, from the first days when we commenced our operation, military operation in Syria, we proposed to our Turkish partners that we should coordinate our work. And at least put in place a mechanism for such coordination. And the Turkish leadership responded, “Yes,” and they promised that in two days the defense minister and foreign minister of Turkey would come to Moscow. But they didn’t come. On many occasions we made attempts to coordinate our work on a bilateral basis, but to no avail.

OS: Let me clarify one thing. What month of last year did the Russians go in militarily to protect their base and bolster their force there?

VP: I’m afraid I might make a mistake and we have to consult the facts. But I think it was in summer.[117]

OS: Okay, so it was before you met? You met in November?

VP: Yes, certainly.

OS: Did he talk to you about the Russian military in Syria?

VP: We heard that allegedly we were hitting the wrong targets. And we heard that that was what was preventing the solution to all issues. But the answer was very simple. Let’s work together to determine the areas which shouldn’t be hit and where there are areas which have to be hit. We could have created a coordinating mechanism, but this mechanism has never been created. And there is no coordination or information exchange going on.

OS: You were saying that you were hitting Turkmen in North Syria, near the border. I don’t know if they are nomadic, but they’ve been there a long time. Turkmen.

VP: The thing is, he never raised this issue. He never said a single word about that.

OS: And the roads that ISIS were using to drive the trucks to Turkey—the oil trucks?

VP: One of these routes was going straight through the territory where the so-called Turkmen live. And that is the best route for supplying oil to Turkey, because it’s the shortest one and it provides access to a Mediterranean port in Turkish territory. I have to say that from the air—up there our drones, the American drones—our pilots see very well. And besides, you know, I think it was Israel’s defense minister and Greece’s defense minister who said publicly that they were seeing that radical groups were supplying oil to the Turkish territory.[118] I assure you everyone knows that. And I was disenchanted by the US statement that they didn’t know anything about that.

OS: And you confronted Erdogan with this information, correct?

VP: No, I didn’t tell him that.

OS: You didn’t tell him why?

VP: Do you think I had to do that? Why on earth? This is not his country. We were cooperating with the legitimate Syrian authorities, with the Syrian armed forces, combating radical groups. But if that was important to Erdogan, then he should have at least mentioned that. But he didn’t.

OS: Could you have said, in a diplomatic way, Mr. President, we have information, good information, that the oil is coming into certain places in Turkey. And we believe that there are elements in Turkey on the border—smugglers who are cooperating with ISIS and bringing the oil in, and we are very concerned about that.

VP: Well, it’s so pleasant to talk to you. You just listen—during the G20 summit, when the journalists left the room, I took out photos just like that—of this size—and from my place where I was sitting, I showed those photos to everyone. I showed it to my counterparts. I showed them the route that I mentioned earlier. And we have shown those photos to our American counterparts. And the United States leads the coalition fighting ISIS. And we simply showed our counterparts these photographs. Everyone knew about everything. So trying to open a door which is already open is simply senseless. It’s something that is absolutely evident. So it’s not about one single truck—there are thousands of trucks going through that route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline.

OS: Who from the United States was in that room?

VP: Well, you’re asking things which probably shouldn’t be made public. We showed those photographs to our partners. They saw those photos. And to be honest they didn’t have any doubts about that, I assure you. American pilots and everything.

OS: So when John Kerry was saying the other day you were “targeting legitimate opposition groups,” what did he mean?[119]

VP: Apparently he is not talking about those oil tracks. Well he is not flying over Syria himself now is he? But he’s certain to have information from his pilots. But probably he was not talking about those cavalcades carrying oil. He must have been talking about something else—some other facilities. But our partners do not tell us what exactly they are talking about. On many occasions we have asked them to provide us with information where we should hit and where we shouldn’t and they don’t give that information to us. And that’s why, and I’m deeply convinced, we have to foster a very good mechanism for cooperation. What we’re trying to do is to avoid using such things for propaganda purposes. We understand that when hostilities are ongoing, tragedies do occur. As in Kunduz where American planes hit a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders.[120] Certainly our media have talked about that to their audiences. When you can actually see it and watch it as you say it. But we didn’t speculate on this tragedy. Right now we know that the American Air Force has hit Libya, Serbian diplomats have been taken captive or killed—certainly a tragedy.

OS: The Chinese embassy in Belgrade.[121]

VP: But that was a long time ago. This tragedy is certainly a tragedy, but it’s an accident and we’re not going to use it for propaganda purposes. When we’re talking about fighting radical Islamic extremists, we have to search for something that brings us together. And we should abstain from using this or that thing.

OS: Do Russian pilots make mistakes in their bombing raids?

VP: I do not have this information. I’ve never heard or seen that in the reports that I have. We are not simply hitting anywhere recklessly. We’re not doing these strikes recklessly. We are coordinating our actions with the Syrian armed forces and with their intelligence services. At the preliminary stage, we did a very comprehensive study of the facilities that were hit. It doesn’t take five minutes. It takes several days if not weeks. And we see for sure what’s going on there. Anything’s possible, but I do not have any good information that our pilots have made a mistake, or that some tragedy has occurred. I do not have any information that would support this claim.

OS: So what happened—out of the blue one day, your Russian SU40 was hit, was shot down by a Turkish F-16? How did that go down?

VP: It was an SU24—a bomber of the previous generation. And some defense systems could have been installed in this bomber, but it didn’t carry any at that moment. And we didn’t protect it using our jet fighters. The only thing that did—it was flying at a certain altitude so as to prevent it from being hit by a stinger. And no one could imagine that a Turkish jet fighter would strike our bomber. But the most terrible thing that happened was that when those pilots were going down using their parachutes, they were shot at.[122] In accordance with international law, it qualifies as a war crime. And those who were shooting at our pilots we know are at large in Turkey, because they gave interviews. Those are not Turkmen, those are Turkish citizens and they talked about the crimes they have perpetrated.

OS: Well, the shoot-down—I gather that there’s NATO oversight over this whole area, so many people have said the Americans knew about it, or NATO knew about it before.

VP: We have an agreement with our American counterparts. As with a country which is leading an antiterrorist coalition, twice a day we exchange information. And before our planes took to the air, we had informed the American military.[123] And they knew where our pilots were going to work. And they knew the area and the projected route those airplanes were going to take.

OS: Any conclusions on your part?

VP: What are the conclusions? The conclusions are very simple—you can use formal logic.

We informed and our airplane was shot down. Then two scenarios are possible. Either this information was transferred to the Turkish side and they performed a strike, or this information was not transferred to the Turkish side. Or the Americans transferred this information to the Turkish side, but they didn’t know that the Turks were going to go that far. So I think these are the main three scenarios.

OS: Did you discuss it later either with Erdogan or Obama?

VP: I don’t remember how our dialogue was developing on that matter with the United States, but as for the Turkish leadership we didn’t discuss anything. Because instead of making a formal apology, instead of stating that they were willing to compensate us, instead of providing support to the families of those pilots who were killed, the Turkish leadership has publicly said that they were going to continue to act in that manner. And then they dashed to Brussels, to the NATO headquarters asking for protection, which in my view, is humiliating to Turkey. They were the ones who made this mess and then they run to find protection somewhere else. No other statement, apart from those that are just mentioned, ever came from the Turkish leadership. Once Turkey’s prime minister said that it was not the president who gave the order, but he. And afterwards, we heard that apparently the Turkish side had not known that it was a Russian airplane. Incidentally, if American partners have to receive information from us about the area in which our air force is going to operate and did not transfer this information to the other side, then question arises, how good are they at heading this coalition and who rules whom in that coalition?

OS: So, two times a day you give information to NATO about your missions in Syria.

VP: Not to NATO—to the US military, and they do the same to us.

OS: And you get the same information?

VP: Yes, information from the United States about where their forces are working.

OS: To prevent a major catastrophe?

VP: To prevent incidents in the airspace.

OS: This is a dangerous situation.

VP: Yes, certainly, in one airspace there are airplanes of a number of countries at once. It can always have some consequences. By the way, we are operating there at the invitation of the Syrian government—so, legitimately.[124] And that signifies that we’re acting in accordance with international law in the United Nations Charter, whereas all the other military forces can only fly there in accordance with the existing national law—either based on a decision of the United Nations Security Council or at the invitation of the government of the country.

OS: So they’re illegal?

VP: Yes, because it’s evident. But understanding that, we still say that we have a joint objective in fighting international terrorism and we’re willing to cooperate with you.

OS: So we have French airplanes, we have British fighters, we have Turkish fighters. And now we have Saudi Arabian, correct?

VP: So far, Saudi Arabia is not operating there. But there are so many airplanes there, including Australia. And Canada.

OS: Really? What about Iran?

VP: No, the Iranians are not flying there.

OS: So it’s a pretty hot airspace, I’d say.

VP: I don’t think so. Because you know, on average, our pilots make 70 to 120 strikes, whereas the international coalition—headed by the United States—makes two to three to five airstrikes per day.[125]

OS: You’re making 70 to 120 airstrikes per day? Seven days a week?

VP: Yes. Every day.

OS: Wow. So there must be some progress I would think. We’re not going to have a Vietnam-type situation here, are we?

VP: There is progress. Everyone is seeing this progress. And I think everyone sees that right now. Certainly, still vast territories are controlled by ISIS, but at lot of territory has already been liberated from ISIS. And this is not just some territory, some desert—these are vital territories for Syria. But it’s not just about that. The thing is, many groups, many tribes in Syria, including the Sunni tribes, have told us that they are willing to cooperate with us and to fight ISIS. And we have established contacts with them. We have informed President Assad about that and the Syrian military leadership. We’ve told them that we’re going to support those Sunni groups that are willing to fight ISIS and the al-Nusra Front. In principle, the military of Syria and the Syrian President agree with that. These Sunni groups, supported by our planes, are fighting ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front on their own.

OS: Well, how big are these groups? I mean, it seems to me if you’re striking 70 times 7 or 120 times per day at least two months—at 60 days we’re down to about 2,000 strikes.[126] I mean, how big is ISIS? How big is this thing? What are they doing for their oil?

VP: The projected number of terrorists participating in ISIS is estimated at 80,000 people. 30,000 of them are foreign mercenaries from 80 countries of the world.[127]

OS: Even Chechens?

VP: They are originating from 80 countries of the world. Including from Russia.

OS: So is it like Vietnam? Is it going to end, or is there a possibility to damage the group, or do they get more support from abroad because they are regarded as martyrs?

VP: In Vietnam, the United States was fighting the government, whereas in this region, terrorist organizations are trying to fight the government. Someone tries to use these terrorist groups to their ends in order to oust the government of Syria. But to resolve this issue, I am deeply convinced that we have to pull our efforts together with those of the United States. And we also have to combine our efforts with those who entered into a coalition by the United States. Your reaction to what I am saying is so skeptical? But I don’t think there is any other way to solve this problem.

OS: There’s no military solution through bombing—it’s like Robert McNamara’s problem in Vietnam—you cannot achieve this with bombing.[128]

VP: Yes, that’s correct. But to transition to a new stage of the process, I’d like to reiterate, we have to combine the efforts of Russia and the United States. We have to take the initiative. We, for one, have to convince the Syrian government, the United States has to persuade their partners from the coalition. And then together we should arrive at a political settlement.

OS: Can I ask, I imagine you’re surveilling these roads 24/7—these roads north to Turkey, the oil supply. Is this a situation where ISIS drives the trucks at different times, at night—like the Vietnamese responded to the bombings? I mean how do you know if you’re succeeding on the oil issue or whether they are selling the oil through other means?

VP: We are confident in our actions and we see that. We see that both during the night and during the day. We are going to stop now and I’ll show you how we can see that, how evident that is. As to the alternate routes, probably these routes do exist which we do not see. But when we’re talking about commercial-level oil supply, let me assure you we see everything.

OS: So that means you’re damaging ISIS, unless something else is going on. If the oil routes are cut, that means the money is being cut. That means somebody else is helping them if they’re going to go on. Which means Saudi Arabian money.

VP: Let’s not try to indicate any country if we do not have evidence to support our claims. Besides, it might not be about a country, but about some sponsors—rich sponsors with deep pockets who are acting based on some ideological motivations. We don’t know for sure. And let me assure you, our partners in Europe and in the US, it’s also known that we’ve dealt a very strong blow against oil exploitation by ISIS.

OS: Which brings me to the next area—I really would like to discuss Saudi Arabian/Russian relations because it’s been a strange journey.

VP: We’ve done a great deal of work in our relations. In recent days we celebrated the anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between Russia and Saudi Arabia. It was during the 1930s, and the founder of Saudi Arabia—the father of the current king of Saudi Arabia—and back then he came to the Soviet Union.[129] We’ve had different periods in the development of our intergovernmental ties but as far as I can see today, despite our controversies with regard to the Syrian settlement, on the whole, we have very good relations which have a chance for further development.

OS: Yes, but can you describe—for example, I know China has made a huge deal with Saudi Arabia involving billions of dollars which is a new development. This is new area for them. You said you wanted to show me something?

[looking at drone attack on cell phone]

VP: Have a look—that’s how our air force operates.

OS: Who’s on the ground?

VP: These are militants. These militants are running with arms—some carry not just machine guns, but they have some serious weaponry at their disposal, which they used to destroy army vehicles. You see, here’s the one carrying it.

OS: These people have fought you before in Afghanistan.

VP: God knows where they fought—these are international terrorists.

OS: So they were surprised you found them?

VP: Yes. By the way, they were coming from the Turkish side of the border.

OS: It’s an anti-recruitment poster for ISIS. You wouldn’t want to join ISIS if you saw this.

VP: You can find this thing on the internet.

OS: Yeah. So, I don’t understand—you’ve always kept good relations with Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia has been mostly involved with the United States and increasingly with Israel.

VP: The world is a difficult place.

OS: But you’re competitive with them, and they are perhaps worried about Russian oil too when they raised their production levels.

VP: You know, there is a certain amount of competition. It cannot but exist. But if we’re talking about such large oil countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia working on the market, there is a need for coordination as well.

OS: Yes, and there was talk of that recently—what happened?

VP: I think that everyone concurs, if production is not raised then at least it can be kept at the same level. Iran has more difficulty joining in this policy because in recent years it has decreased its oil extraction rate. And they tried to get back the traditional markets they were strong in. And that is a legitimate claim they have. And that’s why we have to arrive at a solution here as well.

OS: It’s complicated, but it seems that no one has a better relationship with Iran in recent years than Russia. Just to make my point here, it’s not that you have a great relationship with Iran—you have a good one, no one has a great relationship in this world, but let’s say a good one. You have a relationship with Saudi Arabia. China has a new relationship with Saudi Arabia. Is there a way that these four countries could somehow iron out the Iran/Saudi Arabia issue, the religious issue, as well as the oil issue between them?

VP: As to the oil issue, it’s quite complicated, but I think we can agree on that. And Russia has a role to play. Now, as to the regional controversies that exist, as to the relationship among different religious groups, our role can consist only in creating conditions for contacts between the countries of the region. We prefer to abstain from interfering within these difficult issues that exist between countries. I believe it’s only up to these countries themselves to sort out such issues. But we’re interested in all these controversies being surmounted, because in this region which is so close to us, we want to see stability and sustainable development. They are our partners and we’d like to have stable partners, so that we can work comfortably with one country, with another country, with all countries. And if we work with one country, we don’t want any problems with our relationship with another country. But we are at liberty to make our own choices. Traditionally we have had good relations with all of these countries and we highly appreciate these relations. In practice, we take into account the controversies that exist between these countries and we’ll try to keep away from those controversies.

OS: Well, how deep is this Saudi-Russian relationship? I always wondered, just looking at the chess board with the United States and Saudi Arabia being so tight, and I don’t know who runs who. Sometimes Americans say the Saudi Arabians tell the Americans what to do in the Middle East. I would wonder if Saudi Arabia’s well aware of the economic sanctions against Russia and the problems in Russia. They also have their own problems, true, economically, but they might be inspired or motivated by the United States to keep going and to make it harder and harder for the Russian economy, because they know that Russia helps Iran.

VP: We try to stay away from relations between other countries. The United States tries to democratize everyone else. And I don’t think that the monarchies of the Persian Gulf like that very much. To be honest, if I were in their place, I would think about what the United States is going to do next. And I think they are thinking about that already. Indeed, if you are consistent about your course towards democratization, so you understand what your next step is going to be after Syria, after Libya, after Egypt… I think it would be best to take into account the traditions, the history, the religious particularities of these countries. It’s very difficult to put into place structures of government that work in one place and transfer them to another region. I think it’s best to treat with great respect what is existing. And even if you want to try to support some processes you have to do it very gently, not try to force something from outside on another country.

OS: Well, you know, some people say that the solution to the Syrian problem is a division of Syria into four or five parts. The question is: who are the parts?

VP: There are many variants and scenarios, but we have always assumed there is a need to preserve the territorial integrity of Syria. Because we have to think not just about pacifying the region at this very moment, we have to take the next step and look further into the future. What happens if we divide Syria? Wouldn’t it lead to a permanent confrontation between these parts that have been divided. So we have to be very cautious and we have to do our best so that all warring parties—terrorist organizations excluded—might arrive at a platform to work together.

OS: Did the United States sanctions on Iran contribute to their decision to make a deal on nuclear arms with Kerry?

VP: You often ask me questions which are not within my purview.

OS: Well that’s true.

VP: Our American friends think that these sanctions have played a certain role. The Iranians say that they never planned a nuclear military program. The question was about alleviating the concerns of the international community with regard to this matter. And so step by step it was done. All the while, the Iranians did get what they wanted, the right to conduct nuclear research. And second, they’ve got the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program, including a certain volume of enriched uranium. Everyone seems to be happy with the results.

OS: So your answer is more ambivalent. You’re saying you’re not sure that they worked—that sanctions don’t work.

VP: Well, the Iranians themselves say that these sanctions have stimulated them to take a number of measures to develop certain industries. Some elements related to these restrictions were probably quite a burden to them. And certainly they wanted the sanctions to end.

OS: How close were we to war in Syria when you negotiated with Assad and the Americans to take chemical weapons out of Syria?

VP: I think we were quite close. There was a great danger of a war erupting and I believe that back then President Obama made the right decision. And he and I managed to agree on coordinated actions.[130] As a matter of fact, he distinguished himself as a leader—as the Americans like to say—and thanks to these concerted actions we’ve managed to avoid an escalation of the conflict.

OS: A lot of American congressmen were leaning towards enforcing the red line, but it seemed like many people think that they would have said no, they would have voted “no.” They would have voted “no” to Obama’s desire to enter this Syrian conflict. And they say that if you had not intervened, it would have been an interesting test of the American will to fight a war or not in Syria.

VP: That’s quite natural. Because there are so many people and so many opinions. But only one person has the responsibility to make the decision. The most terrible thing is to talk, to discuss ad infinitum without making the final decision.

OS: It seems that many congressmen thought that at that point, when you re-entered the world scene and saved his bacon that that their eyes fell on you and you were a target for them after that—the neoconservatives.

VP: Probably. Well, let them have their fun.

OS: Well, you came close, and now you’re close again, so it seems to be a very tense presidency you have.

VP: And when was it simple? Times are always difficult. We simply have to thank God for giving us an opportunity to serve our country.

OS: Well you’ve had a lot of opportunities and you’ve done an incredible job of maintaining your cool under this enormous pressure. And I think many—maybe millions of people—owe their lives, without knowing it, to your intervention.

VP: Probably.

OS: And now because you’re pissed off at Turkey you have sanctions on Turkey.[131] So you have doubles sanctions—you have sanctions against Turkey and the US has sanctions against you.[132] I thought you didn’t believe in sanctions.

VP: You know, I’ve already told you, we used to have not just a partner relationship with Turkey, we were friendly countries. We had a visa-free border. But at the same time on many we brought to the attention of our Turkish partners the fact that we were seeing the arrival of many radical elements from Russia into Turkey. We saw those radical elements receive support, receive protection. And afterwards, using visa-free programs, using Turkish passports, radicals entered Russian territory and disappeared. It turned out that the Turkish side is acting like that not just with respect to Russia but also with respect to a number of other countries. And my colleagues, my counterparts, have told me about that—I’m not going to name these countries. Turkey has given us a wonderful reason to add an additional layers of protection to our industries—especially to our agriculture. And we have all the grounds to do that. I refer in particular to ensuring our national security. But at the same time I’d like to tell you that we haven’t broken any existing contract with Turkey. These contracts are restricted in volume. But this is not something we are doing. This is something economic players are doing—I mean Russian companies.

OS: I can understand you insisting on visas, but I don’t understand why you cut off, in this very tough time, the Turkish trade—the new trade with Turkey. It was one of the times when I thought you were the most emotional in your reaction to the shooting down of the jet.

VP: That’s very profitable to Russian producers. It can have an impact on pricing. Only in the short term, but it helps the agricultural producers increase their production volume. It creates new jobs, new salaries, new tech. And it also creates tax revenue.

OS: I’m still saying it’s a problem because your principle is that there should be no sanctions—you made that very clear.

VP: Yes, sanctions do not work with regard to another country, but this is a country which is already active in our market. And this country creates certain difficulties for our own agricultural producers. And that’s why we can pay more attention to issues related to security.

OS: But you can set price controls, the government can do that. I think Glazyev has suggested stuff like that—temporary price controls.

VP: We are pursuing a liberal economic policy and we try to influence pricing, not through administrative measures but through granting support to vulnerable economic groups.

OS: Last question—last night when we were talking and I said something about the 1917 revolution and the fears of Wall Street and the working class getting control of the United States and the richest ones losing control of the country and I talked about that fear and you said yes, but you said also that there is strong geopolitical interest in this area of the world. My question to you is—this is the most geopolitical area where the resources are in the Middle East and the Near East. This is the richest place in the world. Cheney, years ago—Dick Cheney, vice president—said in a meeting that the Middle East and the Near East are the “keys to the kingdom.”[133]

VP: Are you a communist?

OS: No, I’m a capitalist! So when you come to this area we’re talking about, the Middle East, oil comes up and I always hear that oil makes wars and oil is the reason we go to Iraq, oil is the reason we are now in Syria and Iran and this and that. And Russia, of course, is a big player in oil. So how does oil figure in this? Is it really true that oil is a determinate motive for all this chaos we see?

VP: It absolutely is true that oil is one of the elements which are very important not just for this region but for the whole world. I believe that as the world transitions to a new technological structure, as alternative sources of energy are expanding, the significance of oil is going to decrease. As far as I can remember, one of the oil ministers of Saudi Arabia once said—a thing I agree with—he said that the Stone Age didn’t end because the stones ran out,[134] but because mankind transitioned to a new technological level, to new instruments of production. The same thing is going to happen to oil. Coal used to be one of the most important energy sources, then oil came into the picture and then gas, nuclear energy. Probably then hydrogen-based energy is going to be a driving force. But as of today, oil is no doubt one of the most important elements of world politics in the world economy. And oil will eventually lose the role it now plays. I don’t know when that is going to happen, but yes—new sources of energy are appearing. But they are too costly, as of now. And they do not allow certain economies to transition entirely to new sources of energy because, if they do, then their competitive advantage is going to vanish. But technologies do develop.

OS: You said “oil is one of”—but what is the second?

VP: The second factor is the geopolitical position of the region, the controversies in the region which reflect on the whole context of international relations. Let’s take the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It reflects on the whole range of international relations and ties.

OS: Did the United States go into Iraq because of the oil, and/or because of geopolitical considerations?

VP: [laughter] You have to ask yourself because you are American, not I.

OS: You have to be a world statesman. This is a statesman issue—you’re not just a president, you are an international statesman and you’ve contributed to peace. You’re playing a gigantic role.

VP: Let’s have a look at the most expensive, the largest contract in Iraq. Who has those? I believe that American companies do. And I think to a certain degree that answers your question. But whatever the motives of our American partners, I believe this path is still erroneous. To use force to address any issues, be they geopolitical or economic ones, to start with because the economy of the country was destroyed. The very country is collapsing. If we have a look at Iraqi, has the situation improved or not? Let me remind you, Iraq used to have no terrorists at all. And in this sense, that Iraq was more in the interest of the world, and at least Europe, than the Iraq of today. It’s evident that Saddam Hussein was a dictator. And probably support should have been granted to those who wanted to create within the country a more democratic regime.

OS: I agree.

VP: But this should have been done very cautiously from inside, not from outside. And finally the economy—do you know that now Iraq lacks money even though it is an oil-producing country?

And I think the United States has to support Iraq, including financially. And are the American taxpayers used to sending their money to Iraq? I don’t think so. That is the reason we urge the international community to elevate the status of the United Nations charter, international law. We urge them to coordinate how the most important issues have to be tackled. We urge them to find compromises, however much someone wants to act unilaterally. And as for the region itself, it is a very complicated situation and we all share the burden of resolving it.

OS: And let me throw out a twister for you—just you think on this and we’ll talk next time. You know, my accountant who watches Fox News—he’s right-wing. He’s a typical American and he thinks the Saudi Arabians are going after the American oil producers. He thinks that the whole thing from Saudi Arabia is dictated by the growth of the American oil business through shale fracking. And many of these companies in fact I think are going bankrupt—Texas is completely devastated and so forth. So isn’t this a major kind of geopolitical interest in the United States right now? Do they not want to rethink their relationship with Saudi Arabia, realign it and say who is our partner here, who’s helping us?

VP: I believe that is the philosophy behind the policy the United States is pursuing. I believe that, for the administrative structures of the United States, it doesn’t matter who supplies fuel to the American market. The most important thing is for this fuel to be at the lowest price possible. And if, as of today, the American national producers who produce oil using this shale fracking, if their oil is too expensive, too costly to produce, and if there is another supplier who can get the same product to market but at a lower price, then the latter has all the rights. Because in the end that has a favorable influence upon the American economy as the whole. Because the consumers of oil have an opportunity to get it at a lower price, whereas those who have invested money into a more costly product, they were free to take this risk. And that’s why they have to suffer the consequences.

OS: Well, let’s be cynical and just assume that if I was the United States leadership, it makes practical sense now to have a coup d’état in Riyadh, in Saudi Arabia, and take over. Because if we’re going to go to all these wars, we might as well take over Saudi Arabia because that would solve everything for us.

VP: Why?

OS: Clean solution.

VP: And what would it solve?

OS: Well, we wouldn’t need Iraqi oil, we wouldn’t need Iranian oil.

VP: It only seems to be a simple solution.

OS: I was joking.

VP: I understand, but if some unpredicted events should happen in Saudi Arabia, the international energy market is going to be so volatile and it’s going to hit so hard that we’ll be regretting that. I think the producers, the consumers, are interested in a stable price, in a justified price. But no one is interested in volatility in the market. Everyone has to be able to forecast their development and their consumption.

OS: Last question—is there any hope for cold fusion?

VP: I don’t know. You have to talk to the specialists, the experts.

OS: I thought Russia might have an idea about it.

VP: Traditionally this field of research has been well developed in Russia. I mean research in this field, in the nuclear field, and without any exaggeration I am confident that our scientists are at the front edge of this field of research.

OS: Is there any hope?

VP: Hope—there is hope always. And I’m convinced that sooner or later solutions will arrive which we cannot even imagine right now. But new problems will arrive too, which we will have to face.

OS: So you’re an optimist?

VP: Cautious optimist.

OS: Always. Thank you, Mr. Putin.

VP: As to the situation in the Middle East, and the complexity of the difficulties this region is going through. The prime minister of Israel, Mr. Sharon, once told me when I was paying a visit to Israel, he said, “Mr. President, right now you are in a region where no one can ever be trusted on any matter.” I think by that time he had already gone through so much, through so many tragedies, that he had ceased to believe in there being any positive shift, any positive change in the region. But I for one believe that sooner or later this region is going to become tranquil again. People will find a balance in which the region is going to be able to exist in a relatively safe mode, however difficult the solution of these problems might seem right now.

OS: Or Moscow will be a Caliphate.

VP: We’re going to prevent that. You should watch out so that Washington doesn’t turn into a Caliphate.